Equipartitions with Wedges and Cones

Patrick Schnider∗

Abstract

A famous result about mass partitions is the so called Ham-Sandwich theorem. Itstates that any d mass distributions in Rd can be simultaneously bisected by a singlehyperplane. In this work, we study two related questions.

The first one is, whether we can bisect more than d masses, if we allow for bisectionswith more general objects such as cones, wedges or double wedges. We answer this questionin the affirmative by showing that with all of these objects, we can simultaneously bisectd + 1 masses. For double wedges, we prove a stronger statement, namely that d familiesof d+ 1 masses each can each by simultaneously bisected by some double wedge such thatall double wedges have one hyperplane in common.

The second question is, how many masses we can simultaneously equipartition with ak-fan, that is, k half-hyperplanes in Rd, emanating from a common (d − 2)-dimensionalapex. This question was already studied in the plane, our contribution is to extend theplanar results to higher dimensions.

All of our results are proved using topological methods. We use some well-establishedtechniques, but also some newer methods. In particular, we introduce a Borsuk-Ulamtheorem for flag manifolds, which we believe to be of independent interest.

1 Introduction

Equipartitions of point sets and mass distributions are essential problems in combinatorialgeometry. The general goal is the following: given a number of masses in some space, we wantto find a dissection of this space into regions such that each mass is evenly distributed over allthe regions, that is, each region contains the same amount of this mass. Usually, the underlyingspace considered is a sphere or Euclidean space, and the regions are required to satisfy certainconditions, for example convexity. Arguably the most famous result about equipartitions isthe Ham-Sandwich theorem (see e.g. [16, 19], Chapter 21 in [21]), which states that any d massdistributions in Rd can be simultaneously bisected by a single hyperplane. A mass distributionµ in Rd is a measure on Rd such that all open subsets of Rd are measurable, 0 < µ(Rd) < ∞and µ(S) = 0 for every lower-dimensional subset S of Rd. The result is tight in the sense thatthere are collections of d+ 1 masses in Rd that cannot be simultaneously bisected by a singlehyperplane.

However, the restriction that the regions of the dissection should be half-spaces is quitestrong, maybe we can bisect more masses by relaxing the conditions on the regions? This istrue in many cases. For example, any 3 masses in R2 can be simultaneously bisected by awedge [4]. Using double wedges, even 4 masses can be simultaneously bisected [6]. Both ofthese objects will be explained in more detail below.

On the other hand, Ham-Sandwich theorem only provides a dissection of the space intotwo regions, and it is a natural question whether similar statements can be found for morethan two regions. This is indeed the case, Soberon [18] and independently Karasev, Hubardand Aronov [15] have shown that for any d masses in Rd, one can find a partition of Rd intoconvex sets such that each convex set contains a 1

n -fraction of each mass. Further, Barany andMatousek [4] have shown that for any two masses in R2, we can partition R2 into 3 or 4 wedgessuch that each wedge contains a 1

3 - or a 14 -fraction of each mass, respectively.

∗Department of Computer Science, ETH Zurich, Switzerland. patrick.schnider@inf.ethz.ch

1

arX

iv:1

910.

1335

2v1

[cs

.CG

] 2

9 O

ct 2

019

Figure 1: Three masses simultaneously bisected by a 2-cone.

In this paper, we generalize many of the above results into higher dimensions. More specifi-cally, we study bisections with k-cones and double wedges, as well as equipartitions with k-fans.In the following, we give an definition of these objects and an overview over our results.

Recall the definition of a cone: a (spherical) cone in Rd is defined by an apex a ∈ Rd, a

central axis−→` , which is a one-dimensional ray emanating from the apex a, and and angle α.

The cone is now the set of all points that lie on a ray −→r emanating from a such that the angle

between −→r and−→` is at most α. Note that for α = 90◦, the cone is a half-space. Also, for

α > 90◦, the cone is not convex, which we explicitly allow. Finally note that the complementof a cone is also a cone and that either a cone or its complement are convex. Let now Hk

be some k-dimensional linear subspace of Rd and let π : Rd → Hk be the natural projection.A k-cone C is now a set π−1(Ck), where Ck is a cone in Hk. The apex a of C is the setπ−1(ak), where ak is the apex of Ck. It has dimension d−k. Again, note that the complementof a k-cone is again a k-cone and that one of the two is convex. Also, a 2-cone is either theintersection or the union of two halfspaces, that is, a so-called wedge. Further, a d-cone is justa spherical cone. Alternatively, we could also define a k-cone by a (d − k)-dimensional apexand a (d− k+ 1)-dimensional half-hyperplane h emanating from it. The k-cone would then bethe union of points on all (d − k + 1)-dimensional half-hyperplanes emanating from the apexsuch that their angle with h is at most α. We say that a k-cone C simultaneously bisects themass distributions µ1, . . . , µn if µi(C) = 1

2µi(Rd) for all i ∈ {1, . . . , n}. See Figure 1 for an

illustration. In Section 3 we will prove the following:

Theorem 1. Let µ1, . . . , µd+1 be d+1 mass distributions in Rd and let 1 ≤ k ≤ d. Then thereexists a k-cone C that simultaneously bisects µ1, . . . , µd+1.

This is tight in the sense that there is a family of d+2 mass distributions in Rd that cannotbe simultaneously bisected: place d + 1 point-like masses at the vertices of a d-dimensionalsimplex and a last point-like mass in the interior of the simplex. Assume that there is a k-coneC which simultaneously bisects all the masses and assume without loss of generality that Cis convex (otherwise, just consider the complement of C). As it simultaneously bisects allmasses, C must now contain all vertices of the simplex, so by convexity C also contains theinterior of the simplex, and thus all of the last mass. Hence C cannot simultaneously bisectall masses. Still, while we cannot hope to bisect more masses, in some cases we are able toenforce additional restrictions: for d-cones in odd dimensions, we can always enforce the apexto lie on a given line.

Another relaxation of Ham-Sandwich cuts was introduced by Bereg et al. [8] and hasreceived some attention lately (see [6, 10, 13, 17]): instead of cutting with a single hyperplane,how many masses can we bisect if we cut with several hyperplanes? In this setting, the massesare distributed into two parts according to a natural 2-coloring of the induced arrangement. Wewill only consider bisections with two hyperplanes: let h1 and h2 be two (oriented) hyperplanes.Let h+1 and h−1 be the positive and negative side of h1, respectively, and analogous for h2.We define the double wedge D = (h1, h2) as the union (h+1 ∩ h

+2 ) ∪ (h−1 ∩ h

−2 ). Note that

2

Figure 2: Three masses simultaneously bisected by a double wedge.

the complement of a double wedge is again a double wedge. We say that a double wedgeD simultaneously bisects the mass distributions µ1, . . . , µn if µi(D) = 1

2µi(Rd) for all i ∈

{1, . . . , n}. See Figure 2 for an illustration.Alternatively, bisections with double wedges can also be viewed as Ham-Sandwich cuts after

a projective transformation: if D = (h1, h2) is a bisecting double wedge we can find a projectivetransformation which sends h1 to the hyperplane at infinity. After this transformation, h2 is aHam-Sandwich cut of the transformed masses. In Section 4, we will prove the following:

Theorem 2. Let P 11 , . . . , P

1d+1, P

21 , . . . , P

2d+1, . . . , P

dd+1 be d families each containing d+1 point

sets in Rd such that their union is in general position. Then there exists a projective transfor-mation ϕ such that ϕ(P i1), . . . , ϕ(P id+1) can be simultaneously bisected by a single hyperplanefor every i ∈ {1, . . . , d}.

We will actually prove a very similar statement for mass distributions, but in odd dimensionswe need some technical restrictions.

Finally, the last question that we want to address is what type of equipartitions can be doneusing several wedges. More precisely, we define a k-fan in Rd as a (d−2) dimensional hyperplanea, which we call apex, and k semi-hyperplanes emanating from it. Each k-fan partitions Rdinto k wedges, which can be given a cyclic order W1, . . . ,Wk. For α = (α1 . . . , αk) withα1 + . . . + αk = 1 we say that a k-fan simultaneously α-equipartitions the mass distributionsµ1, . . . , µn if µi(Wj) = αj · µi(Rd) for every i ∈ {1, . . . , n} and j ∈ {1, . . . , k}. See Figure 3 foran illustration.

Equipartitions with k-fans in the plane have been extensively studied, see [2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9,11, 22]. In Section 5 we will use the techniques from [4] to prove results for equipartitions withk-fans in higher dimensions. In particular, we will prove the following:

Theorem 3. Let p be an odd prime.

1. Any b 2d−1p−1 c+1 mass distributions in Rd, where d is odd, can be simultaneously ( 1p . . . ,

1p )-

equipartitioned by a p-fan;

2. Any b 2d+1p−1 c mass distributions in Rd, where d is even, can be simultaneously ( 1

p . . . ,1p )-

equipartitioned by a p-fan;

3. Let (a1, . . . , aq) ∈ Nq with q < n and a1 + . . . + aq = p. Then any b 2dp−1c + 1 mass

distributions in Rd, where d is odd, can be simultaneously (a1p . . . ,aqp )-equipartitioned by

a q-fan;

4. Let (a1, . . . , aq) ∈ Nq with q < n and a1+. . .+aq = p. Then any b 2d+1p−1 c mass distributions

in Rd, where d is even, can be simultaneously (a1p . . . ,aqp )-equipartitioned by a q-fan.

3

Figure 3: Two masses simultaneously ( 13 ,

13 ,

13 )-equipartitioned by a 3-fan.

This directly extends the planar results in [4].All our results are proved using topological methods. In some cases, we use established

techniques, such as the configuration space/test map scheme (see e.g. the excellent book byMatousek [16]) or degree arguments, sometimes in perhaps unusual combinations. In othercases, we use newer tools, such as a recent result about sections in canonical line bundles offlag manifolds [17], which we rephrase as an extension of the Borsuk-Ulam theorem to flagmanifolds, and a strengthening of Dold’s theorem due to Jelic [14].

2 Preliminaries

In this section we will discuss two technical tools that we will use throughout the paper. Thefirst one is a generalization of the Borsuk-Ulam theorem to flag manifolds. This result wasalready used in [17], but phrased in a slightly different setting, which is why we will still provethat the version stated here actually follows from the more general statement in [17]. After thatwe give a general argument called gnonomic projection, which will allow us to only considerwedges and cones whose apex contain the origin in the following sections.

2.1 A Borsuk-Ulam theorem for flag manifolds

Recall the definition of a flag manifold : a flag F in a vector space V of dimension d is anincreasing sequence of subspaces of the form

F = {0} = V0 ⊂ V1 ⊂ · · · ⊂ Vk = V.

To each flag we can assign a signature vector of dimensions of the subspaces. A flag is acomplete flag if dimVi = i for all i (and thus k = n). A flag manifold F is the set of all flagswith the same signature vector. We denote the complete flag manifold, that is, the manifoldof complete flags, by Vn,n. We will consider flag manifolds with oriented lines: a flag manifold

with oriented lines−→F is a flag manifold where each flag contains a 1-dimensional subspace

(that is, a line), and this line is oriented. We denote the complete flag manifold with oriented

lines by−→V n,n. In particular, each flag manifold with oriented lines

−→F is a double cover of the

underlying flag manifold F . Further, reorienting the line defines a natural antipodal action.

Theorem 4 (Borsuk-Ulam for flag manifolds). Let−→F be a flag manifold with oriented lines

in Rd+1. Then every antipodal map f :−→F → Rd has a zero.

Let us briefly mention how this implies the Borsuk-Ulam theorem: the simplest flags con-taining a line are those of the form F = {0} ⊂ ` ⊂ Rd+1. the corresponding flag manifold is

4

the manifold of all lines through the origin in Rd+1, that is, the projective space. Orientingthe lines, we retrieve the manifold of all oriented lines through the origin in Rd+1, which ishomeomorphic to the sphere Sd. The above theorem now says that every antipodal map fromSd to Rd has a zero, which is one of the versions of the Borsuk-Ulam theorem.

Note that any antipodal map f :−→F → Rd can be extended to an antipodal map g :−→

V d+1,d+1 → Rd by concatenating it with the natural projection from−→V d+1,d+1 to

−→F , thus it

is enough to show the statement for−→V d+1,d+1.

In [17] the above is phrased in terms of sections of canonical line bundles, so let us brieflyrecall some of the relevant terms. A vector bundle consists of a base space B, a total space E,and a continuous projection map π : E 7→ B. Furthermore, for each b ∈ B, the fiber π−1(b)over b has the structure of a vector space over the real numbers. Finally, a vector bundlesatisfies the local triviality condition, meaning that for each b ∈ B there is a neighborhoodU ⊂ B containing p such that π−1(U) is homeomorphic to U × Rd. A section of a vectorbundle is a continuous mapping s : B 7→ E such that πs equals the identity map, i.e., s mapseach point of B to its fiber. We can define a canonical bundle for each Vi in a complete flag,which we will denote by ϑdi . The bundle ϑdi has a total space E consisting of all pairs (F, v),where F is a complete flag in Rd and v is a vector in Vi, and a projection π : E 7→ Vn,n givenby π((F, v)) = F . In [17], the following is proved:

Lemma 5. Let s1, . . . , sm+1 be m+ 1 sections of the canonical bundle ϑm+ll . Then there is a

flag F ∈ Vm+l,m+l such that s1(F ) = . . . = sm+1(F ).

We will now show how Lemma 5 implies Theorem 4.

Proof of Theorem 4. Let f :−→V d+1,d+1 → Rd be antipodal. Write f as (f1, . . . , fd), where each

fi :−→V d+1,d+1 → R is an antipodal map. In particular, each fi defines a section si in ϑd+1

1 .Let s0 be the zero section in ϑd+1

1 . Thus, s0, s1, . . . , sd are d+ 1 sections in ϑd+11 and thus by

Lemma 5 there is a flag F on which the coincide. As s0 is the zero section, this means thatfi(F ) = 0 for all i ∈ {1, . . . , d} and thus f(F ) = 0, which is what we wanted to show.

2.2 Gnonomic projection

Gnonomic projection is a projection π of the upper hemisphere S+ of a (unit) sphere to itstangent space T at the north pole. It works as follows: for some point p on S+, let `(p) bethe line through p and the origin. The projection π(p) of p is then defined as the intersectionof `(p) and T . Note that this is a bijection from the (open) upper hemisphere to the tangentspace. Gnonomic projection maps great circles to lines. More generally, we say that a greatk-circle on a sphere Sd is the intersection on Sd with a k + 1-dimensional linear subspace(i.e., a (k + 1)-flat containing the origin). In particular, gnonomic projection then maps greatk-circles to k-flats.

Using gnonomic projection, we can show the following:

Lemma 6 (Gnonomic projection). Assume that any m mass distributions in Rd+1 can besimultaneously partitioned by a k-cone (or double wedge or q-fan) whose apex contains theorigin. Then any m mass distributions in Rd can be simultaneously partitioned by a k-cone(or double wedge or q-fan).

Proof. We will only prove the statement for k-cones, as the proof is analogous for the otherobjects. Let µ1, . . . , µm be mass distributions in Rd. Use the inverse π−1 of gnonomic projectionto map µ1, . . . , µm to the upper hemisphere of Sd ⊆ Rd+1. By our assumption there exists ak-cone C whose apex contains the origin that simultaneously partitions π−1(µ1), . . . , π−1(µm).Let CS be the intersection of C with the upper hemisphere. From the alternative definition ofk-cones it is not hard to see that the image π(CS) of CS under the gnonomic projection is ak-cone in Rd which simultaneously bisects µ1, . . . , µm.

In the following, we will only prove statements about k-cones, double wedges and fanswhose apexes contain the origin. The general results then follow from the above lemma.

5

3 k-cones

In this section, we will use the Borsuk-Ulam theorem for flag manifolds to show the existenceof bisections with k-cones.

Theorem 7. Let µ1, . . . , µd be d mass distributions in Rd, let p ∈ Rd be a point and let1 ≤ k ≤ d. Then there exists a k-cone C whose apex contains p and that simultaneously bisectsµ1, . . . , µd.

Proof. Without loss of generality, let p be the origin. Let−→F be the flag manifold with oriented

lines defined by the flags (0,−→` , Vk,Rd), where

−→` has dimension 1 and Vk has dimension k.

Each (0,−→` , Vk,Rd) defines a unique k-cone that bisects the total mass µ1 + . . .+µd and whose

projection to Vk is a cone C with central axis−→` and apex p. For i ∈ {1, . . . , d − 1}, define

fi := µi(C) − µi(C), where C denotes the complement of C. Then f := (f1, . . . , fd−1) is a

map from−→F to Rd−1. Further, as every C bisects the total mass, so does the complement C.

In particular, C is the unique k-cone that we get when switching the orientation of−→` . Thus,

f is antipodal, and by Theorem 4 it has a zero. Let C0 be the k-cone defined by this zero. Bythe definition of f we have that C0 simultaneously bisects µ1, . . . , µd−1. By construction, C0

also bisects the total mass, thus, it must also bisect µd.

Theorem 1 now follows by gnonomic projection.

Theorem 1. Let µ1, . . . , µd+1 be d+1 mass distributions in Rd and let 1 ≤ k ≤ d. Then thereexists a k-cone C that simultaneously bisects µ1, . . . , µd+1.

As noted in the introduction, these results are tight with respect to the number of massesthat are bisected. However, in some cases, we can enforce additional restrictions withoutsacrificing a mass.

Theorem 8. Let µ1, . . . , µd+1 be d + 1 mass distributions in Rd, where d is odd and let gbe a line. Then there exists a d-cone C whose apex a lies on g that simultaneously bisectsµ1, . . . , µd+1.

Proof. Without loss of generality, let g be the xd-axis. Place a somewhere on g. We will move

a along g from −∞ to +∞. Consider all directed lines through a. Each such line−→` defines a

unique d-cone C bisecting the total mass. For each i ∈ {1, . . . , d}, define fi := µi(C)− µi(C),where C again denotes the complement of C. Thus, for each choice of a, we get a mapfa = (f1, . . . , fd) : Sd−1 → Rd. We claim that for some a this map has a zero. Assume forthe sake of contradiction that none of the maps have a zero. Then we can normalize themto get maps fa : Sd−1 → Sd−1. In particular, each such map has a degree. Further, all ofthe maps are antipodal, implying that their degree is odd, and thus non-zero. Finally, notethat f−∞ = −f+∞, and thus deg(f−∞) = −deg(f+∞). (Here we require that d − 1 is even.)In particular, as the degrees are non-zero, f−∞ and f+∞ have different degrees. But movinga along g from −∞ to +∞ defines a homotopy from f−∞ to f+∞, which is a contradiction.Thus, there exists some a such that fa has a zero and analogous to above this zero defines ad-cone C that simultaneously bisects µ1, . . . , µd+1.

4 Double Wedges

Before proving Theorem 2, we will prove a more general statement about bisections of massdistributions with double wedges. Let us first explain how bisections with double wedges can beregarded as Ham-Sandwich cuts after a projective transformation: Let µ be a mass distributionin Rd and let D = (h1, h2) be a double wedge that bisects µ. Use gnonomic projection to mapµ and D to the upper hemisphere of Sd ⊆ Rd+1. Now, antipodally copy µ and D to the lowerhemisphere. Note that both h1 and h2 are oriented (d− 1)-dimensional great circles on Sd, sowe can extend them to oriented hyperplanes through the origin in Rd+1, which we denote as

6

H1 and H2, respectively. Also, we will denote the defined measure on Sd by µS . Note nowthat µS(Sd) = 2µ(Rd) and that (H1, H2) bisects µS . Further, the above is invariant underrotations of the sphere, thus we can rotate the sphere until H1 is one of the two orientationsof the hyperplane xd = 0. Using gnonomic projection to map the upper hemisphere to Rd, weget a projective transformation ϕ of Rd with the property that ϕ(h1) is the sphere at infinityand that ϕ(h2) bisects ϕ(µ). Thus, we get the following:

Lemma 9. Let µ1, . . . , µk be mass distributions in Rd and let D = (h1, h2) be a double wedgewhich simultaneously bisects µ1, . . . , µk. Then there is a projective transformation ϕ of Rdwith the property that ϕ(h1) is the sphere at infinity and that ϕ(h2) simultaneously bisectsϕ(µ1), . . . , ϕ(µk).

In the following we will now prove results about bisections of different families with differentdouble wedges which still share one of the hyperplanes.

Lemma 10. Let µ11, . . . , µ

1d, µ

21, . . . , µ

2d, . . . , µ

d−1d be d − 1 families each containing d mass

distributions in Rd, where d is odd. Then there exists an oriented hyperplane h1 and d − 1double wedges Di = (h1, h

i2), i ∈ {1, . . . , d − 1}, whose apexes all contain the origin and such

that Di simultaneously bisects µi1, . . . , µid.

Proof. The space of pairs (h1, h2) of oriented hyperplanes in Rd containing the origin is Sd−1×Sd−1. For some mass distribution µ, we can thus define a function f : Sd−1 × Sd−1 → R byf(h1, h2) := µ(D) − µ(D), where D is the double wedge defined by h1 and h2. Note thatf(−h1, h2) = f(h1,−h2) = −f(h1, h2) and that f(h1, h2) = 0 if and only if D bisects µ.Further, for each h1 ∈ Sd−1 we get a function fh1

:= f(h1, ·) : Sd−1 → R.Let us now fix some h1 and consider the family µ1

1, . . . , µ1d. Assume that µ1

1, . . . , µ1d cannot

be simultaneously bisected by a double wedge defined by h1 and some other hyperplane throughthe origin. In particular, defining a function as above for each mass yields a map gh1 : Sd−1 →Rd which has no zero. Thus, after normalizing, we get a map gh1 : Sd−1 → Sd−1. In particular,this map has a degree. As we have gh1

(−h2) = −gh1(h2), this degree is odd and thus non-zero.

Further, varying h1 again, we note that g−h1(h2) = −gh1

(h2), and thus, as d − 1 is even, wehave deg(g−h1

) = −deg(gh1). In particular, any path from −h1 to h1 defines a homotopy

between two maps of different degree, which is a contradiction. Thus, along every path from−h1 to h1 we encounter a hyperplane h∗1 such that gh∗

1has a zero. In particular, this partitions

Sd−1 into regions where gh1 has a zero and where it does not. Let Z ⊆ Sd−1 be the regionwhere gh1 has a zero. We note that all regions are antipodal (i.e., gh1 has a zero if and onlyif g−h1

does) and no connected component of Sd−1 \ Z contains two antipodal points. Hence,we can define a map t1 : Sd−1 → R as follows: for each h1 ∈ Z, set t1(h1) = 0. Further, foreach h1 ∈ Sd−1 \ Z, set t1(h1) = deg(gh1

) · d(h1, Z), where d(h1, Z) denotes the distance fromh1 to Z. Note that t1 is continuous and t1(−h1) = −t1(h1) and t1(h1) = 0 if and only if gh1

has a zero.We can do this for all families to get an antipodal map t := (t1, . . . , td−1) : Sd−1 → Rd−1.

By the Borsuk-Ulam theorem, this map has a zero. This zero gives us a hyperplane h1 throughthe origin which, by construction, has the property that for each family of masses µi1, . . . , µ

id

there exists another hyperplane h2 through the origin such that (h1, h2) simultaneously bisectsµi1, . . . , µ

id.

Using the same lifting argument as for the proof of Theorem 1, we get the following:

Corollary 11. Let µ11, . . . , µ

1d+1, µ

21, . . . , µ

2d+1, . . . , µ

dd+1 be d families each containing d + 1

mass distributions in Rd, where d is even. Then there exists an oriented hyperplane h1 and ddouble wedges Di = (h1, h

i2), i ∈ {1, . . . , d}, such that Di simultaneously bisects µi1, . . . , µ

id+1.

Note that for the argument deg(g−h1) = −deg(gh1

) we require that the considered spherehas even dimension. This means, that if we want to prove Lemma 10 for even dimensions, wehave to use different arguments. In the following we try to do this, but at the expense thatwe will only be able to ’almost’ bisect the masses. More precisely, we say that a double wedge

7

D = (h1, h2) ε-bisects a mass µ if |µ(D)− µ(D)| < ε. Similarly we say that D simultaneouslyε-bisects µ1, . . . , µk if it ε-bisects µi for every i ∈ {1, . . . , k}. In the following we will showLemma 10 for even dimensions, with ’bisect’ replaced by ’ε-bisect’. For this we first need anauxiliary lemma.

Lemma 12. Let δ > 0 and let µ11, . . . , µ

1d−1, µ

21, . . . , µ

2d−1, . . . , µ

d−2d−1 be d − 2 families each

containing d − 1 mass distributions in Rd, where d is odd. Then there exists an orientedhyperplane h1 containing the xd-axis, a point p at distance δ to the xd-axis and d − 2 doublewedges Di = (h1, h

i2), i ∈ {1, . . . , d− 1}, whose apexes all contain the origin and such that Di

simultaneously bisects µi1, . . . , µid−1 and hi2 contains p.

The proof is very similar to the proof of Lemma 10.

Proof. The space of pairs (h1, h2) of oriented hyperplanes in Rd with h1 containing the xd-axis and h2 containing the origin is Sd−2 × Sd−1. Let us again fix some h1 and consider thefamily µ1

1, . . . , µ1d−1. As above, we can define d − 1 functions which give rise to a function

gh1 : Sd−1 → Rd−1, which has a zero if and only if µ11, . . . , µ

1d−1 can be simultaneously bisected

by a double wedge using h1. Further, for each h1 we can define in a continuous fashion apoint p which lies in the positive side of h1 and on the upper hemisphere of Sd−1 ⊆ Rd,and which has distance δ to the xd-axis. Define now dh1

:= Ip∈D · d(p, h2), where d(p, h2)denotes the distance from p to h2 and Ip∈D = 1 if p lies in the double wedge D = (h1, h2)and Ip∈D = −1 otherwise. Note that dh1 is continuous, dh1 = 0 if and only if p is on h2, anddh1(−h2) = −dh1(h2). Thus, together with the d− 1 functions defined by the masses, we geta map gh1

: Sd−1 → Rd, which has a zero if and only if µ11, . . . , µ

1d−1 can be simultaneously

bisected by a double wedge using h1 and an h2 passing through p. Again, assuming this maphas no zero, we get a map gh1

: Sd−1 → Sd−1, which, because of the antipodality condition,has odd degree. Again, we have g−h1(h2) = −gh1(h2), and thus along every path from −h1 toh1 we encounter a hyperplane h∗1 such that gh∗

1has a zero. As above, this partitions the sphere

into antipodal regions, the only difference being that this time we only consider the sphereSd−2. In particular, the Borsuk-Ulam theorem now gives us a hyperplane h1 containing thexd-axis which, by construction, has the property that for each family of masses µi1, . . . , µ

id−1

there exists another hyperplane hi2 through the origin such that (h1, hi2) simultaneously bisects

µi1, . . . , µid−1. Further, the hyperplane h1 also defines a point p at distance δ to the xd-axis

with the property that each hi2 contains p.

After gnonomic projection, we thus get a double wedges (h1, hi2) that simultaneously bisect

the masses µi1, . . . , µid and such that h1 contains the origin and the distance from hi2 is at

most δ. If we now translate hi2 to contain the origin, by continuity we get that there is someε > 0 such that (h1, h

i2) simultaneously ε-bisects the masses µi1, . . . , µ

id. In particular, for every

ε > 0 we can choose δ > 0 in the above lemma such that after gnonomic projection we get thefollowing:

Corollary 13. Let ε > 0.

1. Let µ11, . . . , µ

1d, µ

21, . . . , µ

2d, . . . , µ

d−1d be d−1 families each containing d mass distributions

in Rd, where d is even. Then there exists an oriented hyperplane h1 containing the originand d − 1 double wedges Di = (h1, h

i2), i ∈ {1, . . . , d − 1}, whose apexes all contain the

origin and such that Di simultaneously ε-bisects µi1, . . . , µid.

2. Let µ11, . . . , µ

1d+1, µ

21, . . . , µ

2d+1, . . . , µ

dd+1 be d families each containing d + 1 mass distri-

butions in Rd, where d is odd. Then there exists an oriented hyperplane h1 and d doublewedges Di = (h1, h

i2), i ∈ {1, . . . , d}, such that Di simultaneously ε-bisects µi1, . . . , µ

id+1.

By a standard argument (see e.g. [16]), a bisection partition result for mass distributionsalso implies the analogous result for point sets in general position. Further, for point sets ingeneral position, we can choose ε small enough to get an actual bisection. Thus, Theorem 2now follows from Lemma 9, Corollary 11 and the second part of Corollary 13.

8

Theorem 2. Let P 11 , . . . , P

1d+1, P

21 , . . . , P

2d+1, . . . , P

dd+1 be d families each containing d+1 point

sets in Rd such that their union is in general position. Then there exists a projective transfor-mation ϕ such that ϕ(P i1), . . . , ϕ(P id+1) can be simultaneously bisected by a single hyperplanefor every i ∈ {1, . . . , d}.

Let us mention that this result is tight with respect to the number of families that arebisected: Consider d + 1 families each containing d + 1 point sets in Rd where each point setconsists of many points that are very close together. Place these point sets in such a way thatno hyperplane passes through d+ 1 of them. Look at one family of d+ 1 point sets. if (h1, h2)are to simultaneously bisect the point sets in this family, each point set must be transversedby either h1 or h2, or both. In particular, as h2 can pass through at most d point sets, h1 mustpass through at least one point set. This is true for all d + 1 families, which means that h1must pass through at least d+ 1 point sets in total, which cannot happen by our constructionof the point sets.

For larger families, a similar argument shows that at most b dk c families each containingd+ k point sets can have a Ham-Sandwich cut after a common projective transformation. Weconjecture, that this is always possible, even for general mass distributions:

Conjecture 1. Let µ11, . . . , µ

1d+k, µ

21, . . . , µ

2d+k, . . . , µ

md+k be m = b dk c families each contain-

ing d + k mass distributions in Rd. Then there exists a projective transformation ϕ suchthat ϕ(µi1), . . . , ϕ(µid+1) can be simultaneously bisected by a single hyperplane for every i ∈{1, . . . ,m}.

Note that for k = d, this would imply a Ham-Sandwich cut after a projective transformationor, equivalently, a bisection with a double wedge, for a single family of 2d mass distributions.Such a bisection is known to exist for any d which is a power of 2, see [13].

5 Fans

Similar to the previous sections, we will again first prove all results with the apex containingthe origin. We will call such a fan a fan through the origin. For technical reasons, we againdistinguish whether the dimension is even or odd. The general results will then again followfrom a lifting argument. Our proofs are very similar to those in [4].

Lemma 14. Let p be prime and let d be odd.

1. Any b 2d−3p−1 c+ 1 mass distributions in Rd can be simultaneously ( 1p . . . ,

1p )-equipartitioned

by a p-fan through the origin;

2. Let (a1, . . . , aq) ∈ Nq with q < n and a1 + . . . + aq = p. Then any b 2d−2p−1 c + 1 mass

distributions in Rd can be simultaneously (a1p . . . ,aqp )-equipartitioned by a q-fan through

the origin.

Proof. We start with equipartitions. Assume without loss of generality that for each massdistribution µi we have µi(R) = 1. Let k := b 2d−3p−1 c. Consider the Stiefel manifold V2(Rd)of all pairs (x, y) of orthonormal vectors in Rd. To each (x, y) ∈ V2(Rd) we assign a p-fanF (x, y) as follows: Let h by the linear subspace spanned by (x, y) and let π : Rd → h be thecanonical projection. The apex of the p-fan F (x, y) is then π−1(0). Further, note that (x, y)defines an orientation on h, so we can consider a ray on h rotating in clockwise direction. Startthis rotation at x, and let r1 be the (unique) ray such that the area between x and r1 is theprojection of a wedge W1 which contains exactly a 1

p -fraction of the total mass. Analogously,

let ri be the (unique) ray such that the area between ri−1 and ri is the projection of a wedgeWi which contains exactly a 1

p -fraction of the total mass. This construction thus continuously

defines a p-fan F (x, y) through the origin for each (x, y) ∈ V2(Rd). Further note that there isa natural Zp action on V2(Rd), defined by (W1,W2, . . . ,Wp) 7→ (Wp,W1, . . . ,Wp−1), i.e., byturning by one sector.

9

For a mass distribution µi, i ∈ {1, . . . , k} we introduce a test map fi(x, y) : V2(Rd) → Rpby

fi(x, y) := (µi(W1)− 1

p, µi(W2)− 1

p, . . . , µi(Wp)−

1

p).

Note that the image of fi is contained in the hyperplane Z = {y ∈ Rp : y1 +y2 + . . .+yp = 0} ofdimension p−1 and that fi(x, y) = 0 implies that F (x, y) ( 1

p . . . ,1p )-equipartitions µi. In partic-

ular, if fi(x, y) = 0 for all i ∈ {1, . . . , k}, then F (x, y) simultaneously equipartitions µ1, . . . , µk,and thus, as F (x, y) equipartitions the total mass by construction, it also equipartitions µk+1.We thus want to show that all test maps have a common zero. To this end, we note that the Zpaction on V2(Rd) induces a Zp action ν on Z by ν(y1, y2, . . . , yp) = (yp, y1, . . . , yp−1). Further,as p is prime, this action is free on Z \ {0}. Thus, if we assume that the test maps do not havea common zero, they induce a Zp-map f : V2(Rd)→ Zk \ {0}. We will now show that there isno such map.

To this end, we first note that the dimension of Zk is (p− 1)k and that, after normalizing,f induces a map f ′ : V2(Rd) → S(p−1)k−1. We will use the following strengthening of Dold’stheorem due to Jelic [14]:

Theorem 15 ([14], Thm. 2.1). Let G be a finite group acting freely on a cell G-complex Yof dimension at most n, and let X be a G-space. Let R be acommutative ring with unit suchthat Hn+1(BG;R) 6= 0 and Hk(X;R) = 0 for 0 ≤ k ≤ n. Then there is no G-equivariant mapg : X → Y .

Setting G = R = Zp, we get that Hi(BZp;Zp) 6= 0 for all k, see [20], Theorem III 2.5.Further, for d odd, we have Hi(V2(Rd);Z) ∼= Z for i ∈ {0, 2d− 3}, Hd−1(V2(Rd);Z) ∼= Z2, andall other cohomology groups are trivial (see [12], Prop. 10.1). From the universal coefficientstheorem we thus get Hi(V2(Rd);Zp) ∼= Zp for i ∈ {0, 2d−3}, and Hi(V2(Rd);Zp) = 0 otherwise.As

(p− 1)k − 1 = (p− 1)b2d− 3

p− 1c − 1 ≤ 2d− 3− 1 = 2d− 4,

we can thus apply Theorem 15 with n = 2d − 4, where Y is S(p−1)k−1, to show that f ′, andthus f , cannot exist. This finishes the proof for the equipartitions.

As for the more general partitions, we let k := b 2d−2p−1 c. We take the same configuration space

and test maps, only that we now have more possible solutions to exclude from Zk. In particular,let Li := {y ∈ Rp : y1 + . . . ya1 = 0, ya1+1 + . . . ya1+a2 = 0, . . . , ya1+...+aq−1+1 + . . . + yp = 0}.Further let Li := {Li, ν(Li), ν

2(Li), . . . , νp−1(Li)}. We now want to show that there is no

Zp-equivariant map f : V2(Rd)→ Zk \⋃

1≤i≤k Li. By Lemma 6.1 in [4], f would induce a map

f ′ : V2(Rd) → M , where M is a ((p − 1)k − 2)-dimensional manifold on which Zp acts freely.As

(p− 1)k − 2 = (p− 1)b2d− 2

p− 1c − 2 ≤ 2d− 2− 2 = 2d− 4,

the non-existence of f again follows from Theorem 15.

When d is even, we cannot use the above method, as any Cohomology of V2(Rd) hastoo many non-trivial groups. However, we can again use lifting to the upper hemisphere ofSd ⊆ Rd+1 and use some degrees of freedom to enforce that the apex of the equipartitioningfan contains the xd+1-axis. Projecting back to Rd then gives us an equipartitioning fan throughthe origin. For this we need the following lemma:

Lemma 16. Let Fnp be the space of all p-fans through the origin in Rn, endowed with thenatural Zp-action. Then there exists a Zp-equivariant map z : Fnp → Rp−1 such that z(F ) = 0if and only if the apex of F contains the xn-axis.

Proof. Let P be the north pole of the sphere Sn−1, that is, the point (0, . . . , 0, 1) ∈ Rn. LetF be a p-fan through the origin O whose wedges W1, . . . ,Wp have angles α1, . . . , αp. Let abe the apex of F and let h be the orthogonal complement of a. Project F and P to h. Thisdefines a two-dimensional p-fan, which we again denote by F , with apex O and a point, which

10

O

P1

P2

S2

S1

W1

W2

s1α1

= 1

s1α1

> 0

s2α2

> 12

s2α2

= 0

Figure 4: The segment S and the fraction si/αi for two different positions of P .

we again denote by P . We will again denote the wedges of F by W1, . . . ,Wp, and they stillhave angles α1, . . . , αp. We now construct a (p− 1)-valued function z which is Zp-equivariantand for which z(F ) = 0 if and only if P = O. As the projection is continuous, such a functionimplies the lemma.

Fix some small ε > 0 and let D := min(d(P,O), 1− ε), where d(P,O) denotes the distancefrom O to P . Assume that O 6= P . Consider the circle C with radius d(P,O) and center O.On this circle, draw circular segments of length (1−D)π to both sides of P . (See Figure 4 foran illustration). This defines a circular segment S. Note that as d(P,O) converges to 0, thecircular segment S converges to a full circle. Let si denote the length of the circular segmentS ∩Wi. Define

g(Wi) :=siαi· 1

p· (

p∑j=1

(sjαj· 1

p))−1.

Note that∑pi=1 g(Wi) = 1 and that, assuming O 6= P , there is always a wedge Wi for which

siαi< 1. Further note that g(Wi) converges to 1

p when d(P,O) converges to 0. Thus, we can

continuously extend g by setting g(Wi) := 1p for d(P,O) = 0.

Let now z(F ) := ( 1p − g(W1), . . . , 1p − g(Wp)). Note that z carries a natural Zp-action.

Further note that the image of z is contained in the hyperplane {y ∈ Rd : y1 + . . . + yp = 0},i.e., we can view z as a map to Rp−1. Finally, it follows from the construction that z(F ) = 0if and only if P = O.

Using the above lemma, we can now prove the following:

Lemma 17. Let p be prime and let d be even. Let (a1, . . . , aq) ∈ Nq and a1 + . . . + aq = p.Then any b 2d−1p−1 c mass distributions in Rd can be simultaneously (a1p . . . ,

aqp )-equipartitioned

by a q-fan through the origin.

Note that here we do not distinguish between equipartitions and general partitions. Thereason for this is that in odd dimensions, we used Lemma 6.1 in [4] to reduce the dimension ofthe target space. However, this lemma requires that the linear span of the excluded solution

11

is the whole target space, which is now not the case anymore, as for the function z we onlyexclude the origin of Rp. Otherwise, the proof is essentially the same as above, so we will onlysketch the main differences.

Proof. Lift the mass distributions to the upper hemisphere of Sd ⊆ Rd+1. We will showthat there is a q-fan whose apex contains the xd+1-axis which simultaneously (a1p . . . ,

aqp )-

equipartitions all mass distributions. After projecting back, we then get the desired result.Let k := b 2d−2p−1 c − 1. Consider the same configuration space and test maps as in the

proof of Lemma 14. Further, add the function z from Lemma 16 as an additional test map.Assuming there is no required q-fan, we get a Zp-equivariant map f ′ : V2(Rd+1) → Sl, wherel = (p− 1)k + (p− 1)− 1 = (p− 1)(k + 1)− 1. As

(p− 1)(k + 1)− 1 = (p− 1)b2d− 1

p− 1c − 1 ≤ 2d− 1− 1 = 2(d+ 1)− 4,

such a map cannot exist by Jelic’s extension of Dold’s theorem.

Analogously to the previous sections, Theorem 3 now follows again from lifting to the upperhemisphere.

6 Conclusion

We have shown several results about partitions of mass distributions with cones and wedges.We have proven many of our results to be tight, but not Theorem 3. Thus, it remains an openquestion whether more masses could be simultaneously partitioned using q-fans. Also, all ourresults about fans require the parameter p to be an odd prime. It is an interesting questionwhether similar statements hold when p is not prime.

As for partitions with double wedges, or, equivalently, Ham-Sandwich cuts after projectivetransformations, in Cojecture 1 we conjecture that given m = b dk c families each containingd+ k mass distributions in Rd, there exists a projective transformation such that every familycan be simultaneously bisected by a single hyperplane after the transformation. The methodsused in this paper seem not to suffice to prove this conjecture.

Finally, from a computational point of view, whenever the existence of an object is known,the next interesting question is the complexity of finding it. While there is some work aboutpartitions with wedges in the plane (see [1, 7]), to the authors knowledge there is nothingknown in higher dimensions.

References

[1] Oswin Aichholzer, Nieves Atienza, Ruy Fabila-Monroy, Pablo Perez-Lantero, Jose M Dıaz-Banez, David Flores-Penaloza, Birgit Vogtenhuber, and Jorge Urrutia. Balanced islandsin two colored point sets in the plane. arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.01819, 2015.

[2] Imre Barany, Pavle Blagojevic, and Aleksandra Dimitrijevic Blagojevic. Functions, mea-sures, and equipartitioning convex k-fans. Discrete & Computational Geometry, 49(2):382–401, 2013.

[3] Imre Barany, Pavle Blagojevic, and Andras Szucs. Equipartitioning by a convex 3-fan.Advances in Mathematics, 223(2):579–593, 2010.

[4] Imre Barany and Jirı Matousek. Simultaneous partitions of measures by k-fans. Discrete& Computational Geometry, 25(3):317–334, 2001.

[5] Imre Barany and Jirı Matousek. Equipartition of two measures by a 4-fan. Discrete &Computational Geometry, 27(3):293–301, 2002.

12

[6] Luis Barba and Patrick Schnider. Sharing a pizza: bisecting masses with two cuts. CCCG2017, page 174, 2017.

[7] Sergey Bereg. Equipartitions of measures by 2-fans. In International Symposium onAlgorithms and Computation, pages 149–158. Springer, 2004.

[8] Sergey Bereg, Ferran Hurtado, Mikio Kano, Matias Korman, Dolores Lara, Carlos Seara,Rodrigo I. Silveira, Jorge Urrutia, and Kevin Verbeek. Balanced partitions of 3-coloredgeometric sets in the plane. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 181:21–32, 2015.

[9] Pavle VM Blagojevic. Topology of partition of measures by fans and the second obstruc-tion. arXiv preprint math/0402400, 2004.

[10] Pavle VM Blagojevic, Aleksandra Dimitrijevic Blagojevic, and Roman Karasev. Morebisections by hyperplane arrangements. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.05364, 2018.

[11] Pavle VM Blagojevic and Aleksandra S Dimitrijevic Blagojevic. Using equivariant obstruc-tion theory in combinatorial geometry. Topology and its Applications, 154(14):2635–2655,2007.

[12] Armand Borel. Sur la cohomologie des espaces fibres principaux et des espaces homogenesde groupes de lie compacts. Annals of Mathematics, pages 115–207, 1953.

[13] Alfredo Hubard and Roman Karasev. Bisecting measures with hyperplane arrangements.arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.02842, 2018.

[14] Marija Jelic. On knaster’s problem. Publications de l’Institut Mathematique, 99(113),2016.

[15] Roman Karasev, Alfredo Hubard, and Boris Aronov. Convex equipartitions: the spicychicken theorem. Geometriae Dedicata, 170(1):263–279, 2014.

[16] Jirı Matousek. Using the Borsuk-Ulam Theorem: Lectures on Topological Methods inCombinatorics and Geometry. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2007.

[17] Patrick Schnider. Ham-sandwich cuts and center transversals in subspaces. In 35th Inter-national Symposium on Computational Geometry (SoCG 2019). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2019.

[18] Pablo Soberon. Balanced convex partitions of measures in Rd. Mathematika, 58(01):71–76,2012.

[19] Arthur H. Stone and John W. Tukey. Generalized “sandwich” theorems. Duke Math. J.,9(2):356–359, 06 1942.

[20] Tammo tom Dieck. Transformation groups, volume 8. Walter de Gruyter, 2011.

[21] Csaba D Toth, Joseph O’Rourke, and Jacob E Goodman. Handbook of discrete andcomputational geometry. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2017.

[22] Rade T Zivaljevic. Combinatorics and topology of partitions of spherical measures by 2and 3 fans. arXiv preprint math/0203028, 2002.

13